Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
50 Years Today Since The Infamous Rivers Of Blood Speech
Made by Enoch Powell ,very controversial for its time but a lot of it is happening with no controlled immigration nor any government in power or opposition ,willing to tackle it ,it’s seen as a poison chalice
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bobbisox1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Naomi - persisting in moving the goalposts as you continue to do, does not validate your attempts to make Mr Powell some sort of sage prophet of the future on the subject of immigration.
Mr Powell, despite your attempts to expand his rhetoric entirely beyond his stated position, was very clear
He said the 'black man' would 'hold the whip hand ...' - he made no mention of Europeans, or any other ethnicities, he made no attempt to address the problems of immigration as a whole.
Mr Powell specifically stated that the problem would be caused by the West Indian and Carribean migrants, as even you acknowledge in your responses.
My point is that he was comprehensively incorrect, and you appear to be experiencing serious difficulty in acknowledging that unarguably fact.
Mr Powell, despite your attempts to expand his rhetoric entirely beyond his stated position, was very clear
He said the 'black man' would 'hold the whip hand ...' - he made no mention of Europeans, or any other ethnicities, he made no attempt to address the problems of immigration as a whole.
Mr Powell specifically stated that the problem would be caused by the West Indian and Carribean migrants, as even you acknowledge in your responses.
My point is that he was comprehensively incorrect, and you appear to be experiencing serious difficulty in acknowledging that unarguably fact.
//...he made no mention of Europeans, or any other ethnicities, he made no attempt to address the problems of immigration as a whole.//
That's probably because in the late 1960s and early 70s immigration was overwhelmingly from the Caribbean and Africa and was largely restricted to the Commonwealth countries. With Canadians and Antipodeans disinclined to move tot the UK and with Europeans having no right to settle here, this meant immigration consisted almost entirely of "people of colour." It probably did not occur to Mr Powell that any UK government would be stupid enough to agree to freedom of movement from what eventually turned out to be most of Europe.
That's probably because in the late 1960s and early 70s immigration was overwhelmingly from the Caribbean and Africa and was largely restricted to the Commonwealth countries. With Canadians and Antipodeans disinclined to move tot the UK and with Europeans having no right to settle here, this meant immigration consisted almost entirely of "people of colour." It probably did not occur to Mr Powell that any UK government would be stupid enough to agree to freedom of movement from what eventually turned out to be most of Europe.
Full text transcript of EP's RoB speech here for anyone who wants to debate the exact ethnic references (or lack of them) he made:
https:/
https:/
Zacs - I have re-read Mr Powell's speech, and as before, I see nothing in it to change my view - that he feared the influx of black people from The West Indies and The Caribbean, to the point where an imbalance with the indigenous population would be the inevitable result.
And as I have maintained in all my posts on this thread, he was comprehensively wrong.
And attempts by his supporters to extend his fears to those of immigration in general, are inaccurate, and do not reflect his views as laid out in his speech.
And as I have maintained in all my posts on this thread, he was comprehensively wrong.
And attempts by his supporters to extend his fears to those of immigration in general, are inaccurate, and do not reflect his views as laid out in his speech.
'The whip hand' has gone a bit out of fashion, but 50 years ago it was quite common. I've just looked it up in dictionary & the entry is:
whip hand
n.
1. A dominating position; an advantage.
Nobody answered my question at 16:34 this morning, but would you not agree with me, that being the Prime Minister of Britain, & being the Mayor of its capital are both rather dominating & advantageous positions within British society?
whip hand
n.
1. A dominating position; an advantage.
Nobody answered my question at 16:34 this morning, but would you not agree with me, that being the Prime Minister of Britain, & being the Mayor of its capital are both rather dominating & advantageous positions within British society?
Naomi - //
I know agreement with khandro wouldn’t align with your argument here. AH, but it’s really a bit silly to say that Prime Minister or Mayor of London are not a prestigious positions. //
It is 'a bit silly' to use your favourite Enid Blyton phrase, which is probably why I did not say it.
And neither did Khandro.
He said - // but would you not agree with me, that being the Prime Minister of Britain, & being the Mayor of its capital are both rather dominating & advantageous positions within British society? //
I am sure you are enough of a student of the English language to know that 'dominating; and 'advantageous' are not the same as 'prestigious'.
They are prestigious positions - but they hold no real power of any sort, which is what Khandro was inferring, and which is why I disagreed with him.
Perhaps you need to take your own advice in terms of reading posts correctly - //
AH, I don’t know what you think you’ve read but if you think NJ’s point underlines yours I can only suggest you read the posts again. //
My assessment of NewJudge's post is a matter of interpretation, your assessment of Khandro's post is a matter of seeing words that are not actually there.
I know agreement with khandro wouldn’t align with your argument here. AH, but it’s really a bit silly to say that Prime Minister or Mayor of London are not a prestigious positions. //
It is 'a bit silly' to use your favourite Enid Blyton phrase, which is probably why I did not say it.
And neither did Khandro.
He said - // but would you not agree with me, that being the Prime Minister of Britain, & being the Mayor of its capital are both rather dominating & advantageous positions within British society? //
I am sure you are enough of a student of the English language to know that 'dominating; and 'advantageous' are not the same as 'prestigious'.
They are prestigious positions - but they hold no real power of any sort, which is what Khandro was inferring, and which is why I disagreed with him.
Perhaps you need to take your own advice in terms of reading posts correctly - //
AH, I don’t know what you think you’ve read but if you think NJ’s point underlines yours I can only suggest you read the posts again. //
My assessment of NewJudge's post is a matter of interpretation, your assessment of Khandro's post is a matter of seeing words that are not actually there.
naomi - // Yes, AH, dominating and advantageous too. You can hardly claim they’re not. That really would be silly.
I didn’t need to interpret NJ’s post to see it was a long way from underlining yours. In fact it was nothing like yours. //
As usual, you ignore an inconvenient truth - the fact that you changed the meaning of Khandro's post by adding in an adjective he did not use, in order to try and undermine my point - by simply ignoring it and acting as though it isn't there.
And then you deliberately misunderstand my point regarding your advice to me about the post from Newjudge, namely that you should take your own advice and re-read Khandro's post, before distorting it.
Of course, you ignored that, and had another go at me about interpretation, which is not the point I raised.
Interpretation of what is posted is one thing - making up something that is not posted is another matter entirely.
And pretending you have not done so makes you look .... oh, what's the phrase now ... hang on, it's coming ... oh yes, it makes you look rather silly.
I didn’t need to interpret NJ’s post to see it was a long way from underlining yours. In fact it was nothing like yours. //
As usual, you ignore an inconvenient truth - the fact that you changed the meaning of Khandro's post by adding in an adjective he did not use, in order to try and undermine my point - by simply ignoring it and acting as though it isn't there.
And then you deliberately misunderstand my point regarding your advice to me about the post from Newjudge, namely that you should take your own advice and re-read Khandro's post, before distorting it.
Of course, you ignored that, and had another go at me about interpretation, which is not the point I raised.
Interpretation of what is posted is one thing - making up something that is not posted is another matter entirely.
And pretending you have not done so makes you look .... oh, what's the phrase now ... hang on, it's coming ... oh yes, it makes you look rather silly.
Naomi - // Yes, AH, dominating and advantageous too. You can hardly claim they’re not. That really would be silly. //
I can claim that they're not, and i did.
If you want to me rude about my view - no change there - you'll understand if I don't feel minded to adjust it on the basis that I can't live without your approval.
I can claim that they're not, and i did.
If you want to me rude about my view - no change there - you'll understand if I don't feel minded to adjust it on the basis that I can't live without your approval.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.